October 23, 2011

Building the Ineptocracy

Stupid, incompetent or both?

On the day the Tories exulted in the miracle promise of their new shiny e-petitions. One was with Priti Patel on the Jeremy Vine show. Hard to believe but Priti said that e-petitions would lead to things like referendums on capital punishment and withdrawing from the EU. She had a reputation for being intelligent which she effectively destroyed.

Why did she not understand that Cameron's e-petitions stunt is a tease? No Government would be stupid enough to hold referendums on either subject. It would not matter how many signatures were added to e-petitions, the Government will do what thay want. Cameron has made it clear that they would rat on any promise of action after an e-petition decision.

Yesterday, Priti Patel accused the Government of attempting to “close down the debate” on Britain's relationship with the European Union. You bet. Whatever gave her the idea that the Tory is susceptible to open debate. This is politics - not a debating society.

Reneging on the implied promise of the e-petitions will only increase cynicism of politics and politicians. on the same day of my interview with Priti I did one on Channel Four with Guido Fawkes. He was bright-eyed in his faith that e-petitions would be respected. Not a chance.

A Con

This is what I said in January.

The Tories have re-packaged a failed idea and

proudly promised that e-petitions will build a

path to a new democracy. Tony Blair fell for the

same superﬁcially attractive myth. Enthusiasm for hi-

tech solutions is in inverse ratio to understanding of

new technology. Tony’s knowledge of the Internet is on

a protozoan scale. He embraced e-petitions as glittering,

epoch-making weapon of mass communication. In the

Brave New World of mass e-discourse fresh ideas would

bubble up from the proletarian masses to be embraced

by a listening Government. It ﬂopped – of course.

The Downing Street site was deluged by the obsessions of the

blogosphere. The anxieties of the deluded dominated. The views of the

sensible elderly or poor were under-represented. The favourable early

publicity for Blair’s project faded. He hand handed his opponents a new

stick for beating the Government.

More than 70,000 supported the one word suggestion that Gordon

Brown should “resign”. Almost 50,000 signed up to the idea that TV

presenter Jeremy Clarkson should become prime minister. In the last

census 400,000 people gave their religion as Jedi and name Darth Vader

as their religious leader. ‘The force’ was also hyperactive in e petitioning.

The new Cameronian ‘false gold’ oﬀers a parliamentary debate for

petitions of more than 100,000 signatures. Even more enticing is the

possibility of a bill drafted to match the public’s demand.

One the day when the Tories spun this story one blogger claimed that

he could raise 100,000 signatures demanding the public executions of

David Cameron and Nick Clegg. He may be right. Somehow I cannot see

or Parliament would comply. Disappointment is guaranteed.

An E-petition is a solution whose time has already gone. But the problem

of defective democracy remains. The gulf between electors and elected

is a powerful perception. The tabloid-fuelled canard is that all politicians

are cretins who need a dose of commonsense to solve all the problems

of the planet. In the simple world of one issue answers the one-cell brain

rules.

The only change that possibly resulted from Blair e-petitions was the

rejection of road pricing. 1,800,000 signatures clamoured for no new

road taxes. If they had been asked if they wanted less congestion, fewer

accidents, safer roads the signatories would have agreed with those

consequences that road pricing would create.

When the Public Administration Committee investigated this subject

some contradictory results emerged. In Florida there was a powerful

majority demand for new educational facilities. But there was an equally

powerful refusal to increase taxes to pay for it. They squared the circle by

a sales tax that conned tourists into paying for new schools.

One beneﬁcial vox pop was in Oregon where the unrepresented

demand for euthanasia was expressed in a majority vote referendum.

The state complied. A second referendum conﬁrmed by a larger majority

proved that the public is more progressive than the politicians. Oregon

is leading the world with their progressive policies buttressed by the

support of three quarters of their voters. In the UK I long for parliament

to catch up with public opinion and science on reforms of the drugs

laws. Even better would be a measure of the public’s opposition to the

futile slaughter that results from our presence in Afghanistan.

Foolishly the Tories put this piece of vacuous populism into their

manifesto so they have to go through the motions. I am sure that House

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Your views are contradictory.

On the one hand you want parliament to "catch up with the public opinion and science on reform of drugs laws" and "the public's opposition to...our presence in Afghanistan" and the other you think that the public's demand for tougher prison sentences for rioters is media-inflamed populism that will "look silly in 6 months time"

It seems you like to invoke public opinion when you agree with it and ridicule the very notion of its validity when you don't.